游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

Hiive工作室创始人谈对App Store应用克隆现象的看法

发布时间:2011-04-16 15:55:02 Tags:,,,

媒体舆论一般只关注实现数百万次下载量的开发商,但实际上那些只收获了零星下载量的独立开发者的经历,也许更能反映苹果App Store的实际生态环境。

iPhone游戏《Creatures & Castles》开发者、Hiive工作室创始人在之前的媒体访谈中总结了他们在App Store出师不利的原因,并称曝光率是小型开发商在iOS平台最薄弱的一环。针对App Store前段时间的商标纠纷问题,Hiive联合创始人Andrew Rollings再次接受了采访发表了自己的看法。以下是游戏邦编译的访谈内容:

Creatures & Castles

Creatures & Castles

你认为大量的克隆山寨产品,会对App Store造成什么伤害?

除了冲击原版应用的下载量,大量克隆产品还反映了其开发者极度缺乏想象力和原创力的弱点。对于一个开发者来说,想出自己的游戏创意能有多困难呢,至少也该尽量让自己的游戏看起来与众不同吧。

在我看来,明显抄袭成功游戏的克隆行为,是一种根本性质的欺骗手段。我认为这些克隆开发者拷贝他人设计的原因,就是为了从原创开发者手中分一杯羹。

也许有人会对那些将其他平台或媒介的游戏,搬运到这个平台的做法比较宽容,并认为至少他们是引进了这个平台所没有的新游戏。但在我看来,如果原版游戏(例如Flash游戏、桌面游戏)设计师也准备将游戏移植到iOS平台,那么他们就会发现,其他开发者捷足先登了,自己被提前挤兑出来了。所以这种克隆做法也是一种恶劣的行为。

这方面的例子包括桌面游戏《Hanto》,它就是《Hive》的直接拷贝版本,此外还有大量的滑块益智游戏均取材于《Rush Hour》。

像这两个例子的情况还比较复杂很有争议,因为这些克隆版的游戏质量比官方版本还要好。但这也绝不能为克隆行为正名,剽窃创意也许并不违法,但绝对是不道德的行为。

另外,“剽窃创意”是一个很难界定的概念,《半条命》(Half-Life)算是《毁灭战士》(Doom)的翻版吗?还是说它已经添加了足够的创意元素,是一款原汁原味的游戏?我相信《半条命》已经发挥了不少创意,但认为原创性是一个见仁见智的问题。

对于有些手机游戏发行商公然将知名掌机游戏“移植”到iOS平台的行为,你有什么看法?

因为“多相似才是相似”这个问题仍然有待考证,所以我并不想冒犯这些克隆游戏的开发者。

但认为开发者在创建游戏时,必须考虑到对游戏开发者和玩家来说,苹果设备具有自身的独特性。就算这些“移植”版的游戏与原版游戏极为相似,但只要它并没有根据苹果iOS设备的优势和缺陷进行调整和设计,它就无法为玩家提供舒适的游戏体验。

我自己并没有玩过《N.O.V.A》,但听过不少人称它与《光晕》(Halo)的雷同绝非偶然。开发商根据自己的想法,推出原创游戏真有那么困难吗?

在我看来,这款游戏的开发商是有意想借《光晕》的知名度,让自己迅速获得曝光率。在此我并不想明确地说这种借助名人效应的做法是不诚实的手段,但也绝不认为它的做法无可非议。

据称走这种捷径的公司都创造了大量收益,可见他们确实提供了用户所需要的产品。

但假如我是那些原版游戏的开发者,不管我是否打算进军iOS平台,我都会感到十分不快。

是否认为商标法落实过程中的复杂和困难,让那些克隆他人作品的开发商钻了空子?

因为App Store是一个跨国运营平台,世界各地的商标法规定也不尽相同,所以大家很难在全世界成功捍卫自己的商标权,更何况这种法律维权途径还很费钱。

不过我认为,只要开发者注册了自己的商标,他们就有义务去捍卫这种权益,否则就只能将自己的利益拱手让给他人。

我们常寄希望于人人自觉尊重他人的商标权,但现实很悲观,只要有利可图,许多开发商就敢于无视这些商标或版权法律,甚至还会明知故犯。首先,他们都很清楚,除了那些财力雄厚的开发商,多数公司无力与他们对簿公堂;其次,大众往往会站在那些侵犯版权者的一边,而被侵权者却鲜有支持者。

还有一种现象就是商标的“过度维权”,有不少侵权法律诉讼案件是一些开发商故意而为之,他们只是想分食被告的辛勤劳动果实——Tim Langdell与Mobigames这两者的争执就存在这种可能。

而《涂鸦跳跃》和《Stick Sports》不久前的商标纠纷也是典型的例子。

在《涂鸦跳跃》案例中,“涂鸦跳跃”商标所有人已经逾界了,他们拥有的商标是“涂鸦跳跃”而不是“涂鸦”,所以最后也不能成功,他们也许占据了道德至高点,但在法律上并没有优势。

如果开发商将“涂鸦”的商标运用于电脑游戏领域,可能还比较符合情理,就像Stick Sport拥有“Stick”这个商标一样比较有说服力。

我的观点是,《涂鸦跳跃》和《Sitck Sport》开发商的要求都有一定道理。我猜测有相当一部分将自己的游戏命名为“涂鸦XXX”或者“StickXXX”,在很大程度上甚至可以说在设计之初,就是有意借《涂鸦跳跃》和《Stick Sports》的成功来打响自身名气。

App Store为这些开发者创造了一个通过他人创意来赢利的绝佳环境——这种倾向远甚于其他电脑游戏领域。

根据你的经验,开发者在App Store获得用户关注的难度有多大?

四个字,非常之大。除非你推出的是一款能够直接逗乐大众的游戏,或者有幸得到苹果的推荐,不然很难看到成功的希望。

不幸的是,这两样条件我都不具备。

但我认为,这主要是我自己的原因,不能归咎于运气不佳。《Creatures & Castles》是我推出的第一款iOS游戏,它也当然比App Store中的大量山寨产品更好——但它的市场表现就是无法实现我的最低预期。

自从上次采访之后,《Creatures & Castles》最近的表现如何?

在获得2010年苹果应用大赛的最佳iPad益智游戏第二名之后,它在App Store的下载量略有上升,在那段时间中每天的下载量增加到了200次左右,但很快就回落到了获奖之前的水平。

苹果还有哪些改进服务有利于你的项目发展?苹果是否有责任保证每个开发商都获得一定的曝光率?

说实话,我也不能抱怨苹果提供的待遇。在我看来,苹果的这个平台已经是非常完善和公平的。

但是当我看到前面提到的那些克隆产品出现在“本周推荐游戏”列表中时,我还是会觉得很不痛快,我认为苹果在审核应用这一环节中还是应该严格把关。但我想苹果并不会真正在意这一点,他们只关心抽成30%的收益。

就目前App Store的情况来看,你认为这个应用商店的劣质游戏数量还会处于增长趋势吗?

根据别人的说法,以及我自己不科学的观察,我还是得承认,App Store中的劣质游戏数量已经得到控制,并且正呈下降趋势。

虽然这个平台的劣质应用还是很多,但我认为的劣质应用并非App Store唯一的问题,比这更严重的问题是这个平台还充斥着不少克隆产品,如果苹果不加以提防,很可能就会步入Wii的后尘,Wii在过去十多年曾因“盗版软件”而背上了恶名。

你之前曾提议苹果在应用审核过程这个环节中,推出新的评价系统,或者自动将获得用户差评的应用清理出户。如果这样做的话,不会让App Store变成一个被多种条条框框所束缚的平台吗?

作为开发者,我们必须清楚App Store的最终服务对象是用户,而不是我们。

那么它怎么可以为用户提供劣质的应用呢?当然,苹果可以宣场自己的App Store拥有最多应用程序,但假如有相当一部分产品是假冒伪劣产品,那么App Store还有什么吸引力呢?

其次,我要说个可能不受欢迎的观点,就拿我自己的手机为例,它保存了我的许多个人信息,并且需要经常访问网络,我当然希望App Store为用户隐私安全考虑,对产品加强管制。

我希望有人可以细细地审查每个在我手机上运行的应用,以保证它不会给我带来任何麻烦,比如说偷偷地花光我的长途话费,诱使我去点击欺骗性内容之类的恶意插件。

我可不希望在不经过我授权的情况下发生这类事情。据我所知,未越狱的iPhone手机还没有木马或者恶意插件应用程序,但Android平台的情况就很难讲了,它毕竟是一个更不设防的平台。

如果加强防范和管制,是否会让App Store失去对独立开发者的吸引力?

一款产品只要质量过硬,它最终总会获得积极的评价。

但假如一款应用六个月后还是无人问津,或者很少进行更新,那么它就很可能是一款极其平庸或者没人有兴趣的产品。在这种情况下,我认为App Store完全可以将它移除。

另一方面,假如一款应用只获得了大量差评,那么它一开始就没有理由在应用商店上架。

将游戏从其他应用类型中区分出来,是保证获得足够曝光率的有效途径吗?

苹果不需要改变付费流程,可以通过一些简单的步骤,向用户展示更多应用内容。

最简单的方法可能就是将原来固定的前25强应用榜单,替换成一个流动性更强的列表,展示前250名应用排名上升的情况。

另一种简单的改变就是,为那些无法获得曝光率的应用优化目前的反馈系统。事实上,我发现最常抱怨这些调整的开发者,恰恰是那些正因此而获益的群体。

另外吸金能力最强的公司也可能成为这种变化的最大阻力。

不管你庆幸还是觉得不幸,苹果总会从对自己最有利的角度出发,从它最近调整了应用内置付费功能的相关政策,就可以看出这一点。所以只要是对苹果有益的调整,它就会采取行动提高整体的用户体验。

到现在为止,你有后悔过《Creatures & Castles》仅投放于App Store这个决定吗?

我当然不后悔。我认为Creatures & Castles是个好名字,虽然它不是什么轰动的大作,但质量很可靠,是不折不扣的原创四星级益智游戏。

我很享受开发这款游戏的过程,也愿意立即重新体验这种过程。除了原始下载销售额之外,它还创造了一些次级经济收益,所以总体上看它还算是一个划算的项目。不过遗憾的是,它还是没法让我还清按揭贷款,或者让我在欧洲买套房子。

我真正后悔的是选错了发布时机,我原来认为在圣诞节前发布游戏是个好主意,但事实证明这种想法大错特错。它在几天中马上被其他新游戏所淹没,下载情况远逊于普通的日子,根本无法招架大公司大规模的促销活动(游戏邦注:在去年圣诞节期间,App Store停止更新应用排行榜,不少公司趁此推出促销活动,以便占据排行优势)。

我是事后才知道,我其实应该挑更清闲的时期发布游戏。虽然就算这样,我的游戏也难以获得巨大成功,但至少它的市场表现会比现在略好一点,我也就可以惬意地坐在沙滩上喝着美酒享受美好时光,而不是像现在这样穷酸地坐在家里喝咖啡了。

我并不认为将它投放到其他平台就会更成功,甚至觉得情况还会更糟,因为我已经听多了其他平台盗版猖獗的现象。除此之外,我可能还得应付棘手的平台分裂性问题。

作为一个独立的开发者,我没有那么多资源在一系列平台上测试游戏。要让游戏获得好评远比差评更难,如果用户喜欢你的游戏,可能就会给好评,如果应用程序崩溃或者运行不正常了,马上就会出现一堆的差评。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,转载请注明来源:游戏邦)

Apple needs to tighten up on sleazy App Store behaviour says Hiive’s Andrew Rollings

Press attention might focus on the million sellers, but it’s the scores of independent studios getting by on a dripfeed of downloads that provide a more realistic impression of the ins and outs of the App Store.

Hence, when we last spoke to Hiive’s Andrew Rollings – co-creator of iPhone title Creatures & Castles – back in January, he spoke of the problems developers have getting attention for their titles.

A lack of visibility for smaller studios on iOS was his primary concern.

Since then, Rollings has detailed his frustrations with what he described as the “frankly shocking level of detritus on the App Store” to The Street, going on to suggest that Apple is struggling to deal with the stresses and strains created by the sheer size of the marketplace.

Only fair then that we caught up with him for his latest take on working on iOS, with particular interest afforded to Rollings’ view on the scores of recent trademark tussles that also threaten to give Apple’s platform a bad name.

Pocket Gamer: What damage do you think the abundance of clones – titles that blatantly copy other releases – does to the App Store?

Andrew Rollings: Aside from the obvious dilution of sales, the abundance of clones reeks of a lack of imagination on the part of the cloners. Is it really that hard for a developer to come up with an original game concept, or at the very least an original twist that differentiates their game?

In the case of the cloners who slavishly copy an existing successful game on the iOS platform, I believe it’s a fundamentally dishonest activity. As far as I can see there can be no reason to copy an existing game design unless it is an attempt to steal sales from the original author.

One can feel slightly more charitable towards those who copy games from other platforms or mediums, as they are making available a new game that wasn’t previously there. However, in the case where the original game designer is in the process of converting their game to iOS – e.g. from a Flash game or a board game – and they are pre-empted by another developer, this is a similarly sleazy activity.

Examples of this include the board game Hanto – a direct copy of Hive – and any number of the sliding block puzzles based off of Rush Hour.

The situation in the case of these two examples is a little more hazy, as arguably the knock-off copies are better than the official versions. This does not excuse the behaviour though. Theft of  ideas may not be illegal, but that does not mean it should be acceptable.

Additionally, ‘theft of ideas’ is a nebulous concept to define. Is Half-Life a copy of Doom, or does it add enough to the mix to be considered a unique and original game in its own right? I believe that it does, but ultimately – except in the most egregious cases – originality is in the eye of the beholder.

Where do you stand on the practice of some publishers who overtly reference big blockbuster console releases?

Well, I don’t want to specifically insult or upset any of the developers of these titles, as the previous argument about ‘how similar is similar?’ still applies.

However, it should be considered that iDevices are unique in what they offer to game developers and players. No matter how accomplished the ‘homage’ to an existing title, a game that is not designed to the unique strengths and weaknesses of the iDevice does a disservice to the player.

I have not played N.O.V.A myself, but I’ve read enough about it to understand that its similarities to Halo are no coincidence. How hard would it have been for the developers to come up with an original story/setting for their game?

The impression I get is that they intended to have their game identified with Halo in order to benefit from the success of the console title. I won’t go as far as to say that this type of piggy-backing is a dishonest practice, but it’s certainly not ‘whiter-than-white’ pure.

Having said that, companies that take this approach seem to have made significant amounts of money doing so, so obviously it’s delivering a product that the consumer wants.

Even so, if I were the owner of any of the titles that served as inspiration, I would be feeling more than a little aggravated at the slight, whether I had plans to release on the iOS platform or not.

Do you think the complex nature of trademark law effectively gives studios working on clones the green light?

Because of the multinational nature of the App Store and the patchwork of trademark laws across the world, it is very difficult, not to mention expensive, to successfully obtain and defend a trademark world-wide. However, once a trademark is obtained, the holder is legally obligated to defend it or risk losing it.

In an ideal world, we could rely on people to respect the trademarks of others but sadly, when there is money to be made, it’s quite obvious that unscrupulous developers are perfectly happy to ignore such silly trivialities as trademark and copyright law, particularly when they know that, firstly, it’s unlikely that all but the most deep-pocketed developers can afford to challenge them and, secondly, the public tends to side with those who are infringing rather than those who are being infringed upon.

Another issue is trademark fatigue; there are enough shoddy and fatuous infringement lawsuits initiated by those who are simply out to make money from the hard work of others – Tim Langdell vs.

Mobigames, for instance – that any new infringement lawsuit is automatically viewed with suspicion.

The recent Doodle Jump and Stick Sports cases are good examples of this.

In the former case, the holder of the Doodle Jump trademark overstepped his legal bounds as his trademark was for Doodle Jump, not Doodle, and consequently did not have a strong legal case – he had a moral one perhaps, but not a legal one.

It would have made more sense for the developer to attempt to get the trademark on the word ‘Doodle’ applied to computer games instead, much as Stick Sports have the trademark for ‘Stick’. This

latter case is much stronger.

In my opinion, both were justified. I would surmise that the great majority of developers naming their games ‘Doodle XXXX’ or ‘Stick XXXX’ would not have done so – or even have developed them in the first place – were it not for the success of Doodle Jump and the Stick Sports line of games.

The App Store seems to have created a great environment for profiting from the inspiration of others – more so than in any other comparable computer game sales arena.

In your experience, how difficult is it to get the attention of consumers on the App Store?

In a word, very. Unless you have either a game that tickles the public fancy or the good fortune to be featured by Apple, you’re not likely to see much success.

Sadly, I have had neither.

That’s probably more due to my own failings than any particular bad luck or misfortune. Still, it was a first attempt for an iOS game, and it’s certainly much better than a lot of the junk that’s out there – it just apparently didn’t have that ‘spark’ that it really needed to meet my admittedly fairly low expectations.

How has Creatures & Castles performed since we last spoke?

After Creatures & Castles won the second place award for best iPad Puzzle game in the 2010 Best App Ever contest, there was a modest surge of interest from app store purchasers and a couple of other outside parties.

Sales increased to about two hundred copies per day for a few days, and then slowly trailed off over the subsequent two weeks back to pre-award levels.

Are there any steps Apple could take to make your life easier? Is it even Apple’s responsibility to ensure studios are afforded some level of visibility?

If I’m honest, I can’t really complain about Apple’s treatment. From my limited perspective it has seemed perfectly fair and even-handed.

However, it does perturb me slightly when I see the aforementioned blatant knock-offs featured in the ‘Game of the Week’ position on the App Store, which is effectively Apple tacitly approving the production of knock-offs for its store. I suppose it doesn’t care really, as long as it gets its 30 percent cut.

As far as the App Store is concerned, are poor quality apps on the rise?

Anecdotally, and based on my own unscientific observations, I would say no – they seem to have levelled off or even be on the decline.

There are still far too many. However, if it were only the poor quality apps that were the problem it would be so bad; the poor quality apps in combination with the clone army represents a much greater issue that, if Apple is not careful, will cause it to garner the same ‘shovelware’ reputation that has plagued the Wii over the past couple of years.

You’ve spoken before of Apple introducing a review system in its app approval process, or automatically removing titles with bad user reviews. Isn’t there a danger such processes would make the platform a minefield of rules and regulations?

Ultimately, what we as developers have to remember is that the App Store is a service for the consumer, not us.

What service does it provide the consumer to make a poor app available for purchase? Sure, it allows Apple to boast its store has the most apps, but if a significant proportion of the available content is dross, what good is it?

Secondly – and this may be an unpopular opinion – when it comes to my phone, a device that carries a lot of my personal data and is constantly connected to the internet, I positively welcome the curated approach of the App Store.

I want somebody to be vetting and verifying every application that runs on my phone, to make sure that it’s not performing anything untoward – such as silently running up long distance charges, wasting available bandwidth on click-fraud, or whatever ingenious scheme the malware writers will come up with next.

I don’t want to find out after the fact that my phone has been doing stuff that I did not authorise and had no control over. As far as I know, there are no trojans or malware apps available for un-jailbroken iPhones. The same cannot be said for Android – an environment with much fewer safeguards in place.

Could heightened rules and regulations endanger the marketplace’s role as a home for independent developers, though?

If an app is good, it will eventually get good reviews.

However, if an app still has no reviews after six months, for example, and/or is no longer being actively developed, then it’s highly likely that it’s either blandly mediocre, or of interest to no-one. In this instance, I’d see no problem with removing it from the App Store.

On the flip-side, if an app received nothing but terrible reviews, then it has no business being on the app store in the first place.

Is segregation between games and the way they’re listed the only way to ensure titles get the attention they deserve?

There are several simple steps that Apple could take to expose more apps to the consumer without drastically altering the purchase process.

Probably the simplest of these would be to replace the fixed top 25 category in the App Store with a rotating display drawn from the top say 250 apps with some slight weighting towards the top of the chart.

Other simple changes along these lines designed to showcase more apps that otherwise wouldn’t get exposure would most likely go a long way toward smoothing out the runaway positive feedback effect of the current system. In fact, the only people I could see complaining most about changes such as these are those who currently benefit the most from it.

These would also be the people with the most money and, presumably, the most influence against such changes.

Fortunately – or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint – Apple tends to do what is best for Apple, as can be seen by its recent in-app purchase changes, so hopefully, as long as Apple was able see the benefit, changes such as these would stand a chance of being implemented if they were determined to improve the overall experience.

All things considered, do you regret launching Creatures & Castles exclusively on the App Store?

I certainly don’t regret it. I think it’s a pretty good game, and while it may be no blockbuster, it’s a solid, original four-star puzzle game.

I enjoyed the process of making it, and would do it again in a heartbeat. It has also had some secondary financial benefits beyond the initial sales, so overall it looks like it will be financially worthwhile. It’s not going to pay off my mortgage or buy me a vacation home in Europe though. Shame.

What I do regret is the timing of my release; for some reason I had it in my head that releasing just before Christmas was a good idea. Big mistake. It vanished from the new list within a couple of days – as opposed to the couple of weeks during less busy periods – and was trampled in the rush from the big boys trying to get positioned in the charts to benefit from Apple’s App Store processing shutdown – a period of one week where the charts wouldn’t be updated.

With hindsight, I should have released in a quieter period. It still may not have been a huge success, but it may have made a significant enough difference such that I could be recounting this from a beach with something strong and alcoholic in my hand rather than sitting at home drinking a coffee.

In any case, I doubt that sales would have been significantly better on other platforms; if anything they would have been worse given the stories I’ve heard about rampant piracy. Not only that, but I would have had to have dealt with significant platform fragmentation.

As a lone developer, I don’t have the resources to be able to test an app across the whole range of devices. It’s a lot harder to get a good review than it is to get a bad one; if a purchaser likes your game, you may get a review, but if it crashes or fails to function correctly, you can bet that a indignant review will swiftly follow.(source:pocketgamer


上一篇:

下一篇: